My recollection is that regardless of intent, these changes were not done by the state legislature which has the sole authority to make any changes in the election laws and were struck down because the people making the changes did not have the authority to do so.
I am sure that you will correct me if I am wrong.
The PA Supreme Court ruling still stands. It has not been struck down but is expected to be appealed to US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court ruled today that PA must segregate those votes.
Yes, but is my recollection correct about what happened and why ? You have not stated anything about that yet, to me or miamiz.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 6, 2020 - 6:36pm
kurtster wrote:
My recollection is that regardless of intent, these changes were not done by the state legislature which has the sole authority to make any changes in the election laws and were struck down because the people making the changes did not have the authority to do so.
I am sure that you will correct me if I am wrong.
The PA Supreme Court ruling still stands. It has not been struck down but is expected to be appealed to US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court ruled today that PA must segregate those votes.
was the voter ballot deadline moved? and why? or what rules were changed/modified?
was it because of covid? and did they just mail/shotgun out ballots to everyone on a list?
is this what barr was yammering about? (i think he said playing with fire) he seemed particularly tweaked
The deadline was extended from received by Election Day to received 3 days after Election Day. Mostly, I believe, due to COVID concerns.
Barr, like Trump, was talking about massive fraud. See my original post regarding what constitutes fraud.
Many jurisdictions made changes due to COVID concerns. You may recall that Texas jurisdictions were making use of drop boxes because of expected delays in delivery afflicting USPS. The Republican Governor ordered that there could be only one drop box per county. He said he did so to mitigate possible fraud. Others said he did so to try to tamp down the Democratic vote.
Both parties try to enact laws or issue regulations governing the electoral process they believe will favor their party. That does not render votes cast pursuant to those laws/regulations fraudulent— even if the law or regulation is struck down subsequent to the election.
My recollection is that regardless of intent, these changes were not done by the state legislature which has the sole authority to make any changes in the election laws and were struck down because the people making the changes did not have the authority to do so.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 6, 2020 - 3:35pm
buddy wrote:
Maybe you guys ought to meetup on a group zoom or something.
To whom are you directing that and what is the problem you are complaining about? The exchanges between Miami and I seem to me to be relevant to the topic of this thread. Do you disagree or are you complaining about something else?
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 6, 2020 - 3:25pm
miamizsun wrote:
was the voter ballot deadline moved? and why? or what rules were changed/modified?
was it because of covid? and did they just mail/shotgun out ballots to everyone on a list?
is this what barr was yammering about? (i think he said playing with fire) he seemed particularly tweaked
The deadline was extended from received by Election Day to received 3 days after Election Day. Mostly, I believe, due to COVID concerns.
Barr, like Trump, was talking about massive fraud. See my original post regarding what constitutes fraud.
Many jurisdictions made changes due to COVID concerns. You may recall that Texas jurisdictions were making use of drop boxes because of expected delays in delivery afflicting USPS. The Republican Governor ordered that there could be only one drop box per county. He said he did so to mitigate possible fraud. Others said he did so to try to tamp down the Democratic vote.
Both parties try to enact laws or issue regulations governing the electoral process they believe will favor their party. That does not render votes cast pursuant to those laws/regulations fraudulentâ even if the law or regulation is struck down subsequent to the election.
i'm certainly not up on all of this and i could be off here but
when and why did the pa supreme council rule on this?
i thought i gleaned on the web (maybe reason or the world socialist website) where the dems were trying to or did get the green party knocked off the ballot in pa (due to a technicality)
i think they called it skulduggery (i'd consider this sop for both parties-let's count votes that count for us type of thing)
and is any of this related to anything hawkfish?
regards
The PA Supreme Court decision was September 16.
Challenges brought by partisans are not uncommon. Sometimes prospective candidates are not permitted on the ballot because, for example, they did not obtain the required minimum number of valid resident signatures. This has happened several times that I can think of in the District of Columbia, including one time when incumbent Mayor Anthony Williams had just that happen to him. He still won as a write-in candidate. These kinds of challenges usually are politically motivated.
was the voter ballot deadline moved? and why? or what rules were changed/modified?
was it because of covid? and did they just mail/shotgun out ballots to everyone on a list?
is this what barr was yammering about? (i think he said playing with fire) he seemed particularly tweaked
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 6, 2020 - 2:49pm
miamizsun wrote:
i'm certainly not up on all of this and i could be off here but
when and why did the pa supreme council rule on this?
i thought i gleaned on the web (maybe reason or the world socialist website) where the dems were trying to or did get the green party knocked off the ballot in pa (due to a technicality)
i think they called it skulduggery (i'd consider this sop for both parties-let's count votes that count for us type of thing)
and is any of this related to anything hawkfish?
regards
The PA Supreme Court decision was September 16.
Challenges brought by partisans are not uncommon. Sometimes prospective candidates are not permitted on the ballot because, for example, they did not obtain the required minimum number of valid resident signatures. This has happened several times that I can think of in the District of Columbia, including one time when incumbent Mayor Anthony Williams had just that happen to him. He still won as a write-in candidate. These kinds of challenges usually are politically motivated.
Keep in mind that these myriad Trump legal challenges in several states are or will be disparate challenges that — even if determined to be valid (a big “if”) — would not equate to massive fraud (I.e., fraud orchestrated by Democrats). In fact, in most if not all of these cases, they would not even involve any fraud.
For example, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to order Pennsylvania to segregate all ballots received after Election Day because Trump is arguing that all ballots received after Election Day should be disqualified. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously had ruled — before the election — that mailed ballots received within 3 days after Election Day could be counted, rejecting a Trump challenge. Voters relied on that and courts are reluctant to disenfranchise voters who relied in good faith on a prescribed election process. Even if theose votes ultimately were disqualified, that would not mean they were fraudulent.
It is no different, for example, than votes being disqualified because voters failed to put their ballots inside of the required secrecy sleeve before sealing them inside the envelope and mailing them (there is a challenge in Nevada, I believe, to approximately 600 such ballots). That kind of mistake may result in disqualification of a ballot but it would not constitute fraud.
The political narrative of Trump and his surrogates is that these disparate anomalies or violations should be seen as part of a whole — massive fraud by Democrats. In sum, disqualification of particular ballots does not in most cases equate with fraud, much less massive fraud across several states.
i'm certainly not up on all of this and i could be off here but
when and why did the pa supreme council rule on this?
i thought i gleaned on the web (maybe reason or the world socialist website) where the dems were trying to or did get the green party knocked off the ballot in pa (due to a technicality)
i think they called it skulduggery (i'd consider this sop for both parties-let's count votes that count for us type of thing)
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 6, 2020 - 1:59pm
Keep in mind that these myriad Trump legal challenges in several states are or will be disparate challenges that â even if determined to be valid (a big âifâ) â would not equate to massive fraud (I.e., fraud orchestrated by Democrats). In fact, in most if not all of these cases, they would not even involve any fraud.
For example, Trump is asking the Supreme Court to order Pennsylvania to segregate all ballots received after Election Day because Trump is arguing that all ballots received after Election Day should be disqualified. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously had ruled â before the election â that mailed ballots received within 3 days after Election Day could be counted, rejecting a Trump challenge. Voters relied on that and courts are reluctant to disenfranchise voters who relied in good faith on a prescribed election process. Even if theose votes ultimately were disqualified, that would not mean they were fraudulent.
It is no different, for example, than votes being disqualified because voters failed to put their ballots inside of the required secrecy sleeve before sealing them inside the envelope and mailing them (there is a challenge in Nevada, I believe, to approximately 600 such ballots). That kind of mistake may result in disqualification of a ballot but it would not constitute fraud.
The political narrative of Trump and his surrogates is that these disparate anomalies or violations should be seen as part of a whole â massive fraud by Democrats. In sum, disqualification of particular ballots does not in most cases equate with fraud, much less massive fraud across several states.
Dear Melania, Thank you for NOT wearing a mask. Many complain about unchecked population growth and it is so heart warming to see you take concrete action on this problem.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 6, 2020 - 9:54am
Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrumpSome or all of the content shared in this Tweet is disputed and might be misleading about an election or other civic process. Learn moreI easily WIN the Presidency of the United States with LEGAL VOTES CAST. The OBSERVERS were not allowed, in any way, shape, or form, to do their job and therefore, votes accepted during this period must be determined to be ILLEGAL VOTES. U.S. Supreme Court should decide!
And there you have it. The remedy sought by Trump for this alleged violation would be to declare all votes âaccepted during this periodâ to be disqualified. Good luck with that argument.
....... Your comment is conveniently lacking accuracy. Observers were always in the building...Trump's lawyers admitted that in court. What they wanted was to get closer. Why? Not because they are trying to see anything they couldn't see from 20 feet, they just want to create a sense of unfairness to support the President's narative that the election was being stolen.
Last night he proved he is unworthy of the job. There is no proof of fraud. NONE. It's over. Take the loss with some dignity and stop trying to destroy the country you profess to love.
There are numerous ways to improve elections in both Canada and the USA but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Voting and ballot counting have been fairly and well conducted for a very long time. I never doubt the treatment of my vote in Canada and have never read, heard or seen evidence to doubt the voting process in the USA. Incidentally, the folks who conduct and observe elections in the USA strike me as very, very similar to the same folks in Canada. I trust them, you should too.
kurtster, whether you actually have any integrity or not, the USA is yours to democratically ruin.
American frivolous law suits are famous. Wealth-destroying political rent seeking is famous. I suppose that means that Americans share a lot more in common with Neo-Marxist heroes in Latin America like Presidents Allende, Chavez or now Maduro than most Americans will recognize or be willing to recognize. Feeling proud?
Yes it is, appealing a court ruling to allow observers in to watch the counting process.
What are they trying to hide ?
Too bad that you are so new to elections kurtster.
So it's important that we agree on facts in the appeal.
Kurt, I assume your appeal is related to the Philadelphia counting, and the judgment in favor of the Trump campaign to allow observers to be closer.
The counting in PA is online live. We can all watch it from a distance. Sure, you can't see that much, but there are cameras everywhere. If you were in the building, there are CCTV's that you can see dozens of views.
Yesterday in court, the Trump lawyers asked that their 15 observers (in the building, and wandering but restricted to 20 feet from the workers) be allowed to get closer. The judge ruled that they could go to 6 feet.
Lawyers for the City of Philadelphia (sure, they're probably Democrats) originally filed an appeal out of concerns for the observers being "in the way" and being too close during the Pandemic. The City then decided to just get on with it and the counting re-started.
Your comment is conveniently lacking accuracy. Observers were always in the building...Trump's lawyers admitted that in court. What they wanted was to get closer. Why? Not because they are trying to see anything they couldn't see from 20 feet, they just want to create a sense of unfairness to support the President's narative that the election was being stolen.
Last night he proved he is unworthy of the job. There is no proof of fraud. NONE. It's over. Take the loss with some dignity and stop trying to destroy the country you profess to love.
Also, from that hearing:
Diamond: "Iâm asking you as a member of the bar of this court: are people representing the Donald J Trump for president, representing the plaintiffs, in that room?"
Trump campaign lawyer: "Yes."
Diamond: "I'm sorry, then what's your problem?"
When a judge opens a question by reminding the lawyer that he is a member of the bar, then that lawyer is on thin ice.